Oblique Intention

Oblique Intention

1. DPP v Smith 1961 Policeman grabs onto car to stop getaway is thrown off and dies, Did the Defendant intend the natural and probable consequences of his actions ?

   • Hyam v DPP 1975 Defendant poured petrol through v's letterbox. Killed two children in the house. Court of Appeal - 3:2 - D would have the MR for murder is she foresaw that death of GBH was a likely or highly probable conseqence of her actions.
     • Moloney 1985 Son & Step father have dare and game of load draw shoot. Son accidentally aims at Stepfather and kills him. 1) Was death or really serious injury in a murder case a natural consequence of the defendants voluntary act ? 2) Then if jury can answer Yes to both it is proper for them to draw inference that D intended the consequence.
       • Hancock v Shankland 1986 Striking miners threw concrete blocks over bridge to stop mining continuing during strike. Hit a taxi driver who died. Appeal - Court of and Lords stated that using the Moloney guidelines was unsafe because it lacked reference to Probability. Was there foresight - if so there was a greater probability that the full consequence was intended.
         • Nedrick 1986 D poured paraffin through a woman's letterbox. Killing the woman's child. D said he just wanted to scare the mother. Lord Lane CJ stated in the appeal that the direction was incorrect (Moloney decision was not yet concluded at time of this trial) The trial judge had used the Hyman v DPP direction which relied on the Probabili
           • Lord Lane CJ 'the jury should be directed that they are Not entitled to infer the necessary intention, unless they feel sure that the death or serious harm was virtual certainty as a result of the defendants actions and the the defendant appreciated that such was the case'.
           • Woolin 1999 Just changed direction from infer to find. Defendant lost his temper and threw baby onto hard surface killing it. Held murder, overruled at House of Lords - manslaughter not murder. Trial judge had used the term 'substantial risk' which was moving against Nedrick and therefore a misdirection.
             • Where the charge is murder and the in the rare cases where the simple direction (i.e. direct intent) should be directed that they are Not entitled to Infer the necessary intention unless they feel sure that the death or serious bodily harm was a virtual certainty as a result of the defendants actions and that the defendant appreciated that such was the case.
             • Mathew and Alleyne 2003 Foresight is evidence of intention - i.e. a jury can (but are not obliged to) infer intention from foresight.
         • Senior Courts held that the direction to the jury based on the Moloney case were wrong as they didn't include probability.
       • Problem here is that the first question is deemed to be objective and therefore the case was criticised as it was inconsistent with S.8 CJA 1967.
     • The term probable meant that this case was criticised as law had previously regarded foresight = intent.
   • Led to decision by Parliament to put ~S.8 Criminal Justice Act !967 in, Page 34 !!